Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Begopa sends in word that a federal judge has struck down the Child Online Protection Act. The judge said that parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit others' rights to free speech. This was the case for which the US Department of Justice subpoenaed several search companies for search records; only Google fought the order. The case has already been to the Supreme Court. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. wrote in his decision: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

For once, the mouth on the Censorship icon should have the black strip removed. This law has been the dark specter over every forum I've seen for years, and many non-communication-related services, too.

The question is, is COPA finally dead, for good? No more judgements to be made on the case? Please? The article doesn't specify if it could be appealed again.

I realize they'll just pass another law with similar provisions, but at least this helps set the tone in the courts.

I wrote the first available internet filter for windows 3.1 The Internet Filter [internetfilter.com] specifically because it is the parent's responsibility to decide what their children should and should not see, not the government's responsibility.

My parents wouldn't. Then again, for me it was exploiting a known vulnerability in SurfControl or something like that (don't remember the name) to find the master password and set it to "don't block anything" mode.

The funny thing is I didn't even care about the porn (I had a Dreamcast web browser for that); I was just sick of it driving up the ping for Starcraft.

At school there was a Windows 3.1 box with Cyber Patrol or some crapware like that, and locked down to disable running fileman.exe, command.com or indeed any program that wasn't in the Program Manager menus. IIRC you could specify in win.ini to forbid File->Run or altering the program groups. In the end I loaded up Winword and loaded in help.exe or some other worthless program as though it were a Word document, then after Word had thoroughly mangled all the bytes in the file I saved it back again and r

Forgive my ignorance on this, but can the US Congress pass a law that clearly violates the Constitution? Are there any mechanisms in place to censure those who pass any such laws, or can they just immediately pass COPA-II that's word-for-word identical, and will have full force of law until the courts knock that down as well?

Legally, I think they can, yes. However, with this ruling, it will make it extremely easy for further laws to have semi-permanent injunctions against their enforcement until the courts can rule on the new laws set immediately after a law hits the books and even before it goes into enforcement.

Congress can pass any law it wants. The executive branch enforces the laws. When someone gets screwed over, the related court case has the potential to strike the law down, if it's deemed unconstitutional. (Which is, largely, a matter of whether the defendant has a good enough lawyer.)

At least one attempt at getting a law (the DMCA) struck down prior to a citizen being charged was dismissed because, in the judge's eyes, said citizen wasn't then under threat of being charged. As I recall, that had to do with some academic researcher whose research was made illegal, or at least part of a gray area, by the DMCA.

but can the US Congress pass a law that clearly violates the Constitution?br>
Oh my, yes. Legislative branch can pass anything they like. Who's going to stop them?
Are there any mechanisms in place to censure those who pass any such laws

Now we get to that. The judicaial branch can strike it down, or perhaps it can be nullified by widespread refusal of The People (likely) or the police (less likely). Then you're pretty much left with submitting to it or moving on to armed revolt.

As has been said, Congress can pass an illegal law if it wants to, and it will be struck down by the courts.The mechanisms in place to prevent them from passing the same law again are twofold: One, the people should vote out anyone that stupid. (Ok, so that one's unlikely.) Two, the courts can use previous rulings as precident on similar cases, so all you have to do is point out that the reason that the previous law was illegal is also valid on this law, and the courts will overturn the new law. If the

This law has been the dark specter over every forum I've seen for years, and many non-communication-related services, too.

Are you sure you're not confusing COPA with COPPA? Both can apply to forums, but COPPA is a more constant point, requiring that forum admins collect parental permission from potential users age 12 or under.

Except that kind of reasoning is the job of legislators, not judges. Like many judges, he has forgotten his role and taken the job of dictator for life.

Actually, all this judge did was say that this law was inconsistent with another, higher law (the Constitution). Simply because he notes that the First Amendment is a good idea for adults doesn't mean he's a dictator.

When did protecting Constitutional rights become being a dictator? This is EXACTLY his job.

The purpose of the appeals courts is to 1) make decisions on points of order to ensure that lower courts mete out justice in a formulaic and consistent matter and 2) keep the process of determining constitutionality on the path to the supreme court for a final decision of constitutionality.

If the government does not approve of this decision, they have the exact same remedy they've had for hundreds of years now: appeal.

In the case, the ACLU sued in a civil action for an injunction against enforcement of the law on the basis that it was unconstitutional. The government waived a jury trial, and after finding of fact, the judge granted the injunction. The media grabbed the ball and ran with it.

I still want to know what you think the "role" of judges are, though, even if the judge didn't "strike down" the law.

The real question I've always had is: Why is porn bad for kids? Seriously, I can't come up with any reason at all. Unless it's ultra-violent rape porn or something, porn is typically far less disturbing to a kid than the evening news.

You've illustrated the primary argument, that porn can have an influence on children's learned behavior. And there's millions of Americans who, for some reason, believe that any knowledge of sex will cause children to grow up to be something they shouldn't. (Like, "parents", I suppose.)

And this is why when i turned 13, my parents bought me a porno mag...they used it as a diagram for "the talk". Instead of telling me NOT to have sex, they encouraged me to have SAFE sex. Teaching abstinance helps no one, teaching safe sex helps everyone.

If we're cowered into not telling the plain and simple truth, people will walk away entertaining the idea that, "Oh my God, exposure sex really will harm children." The truth is, demonstratably, false, and it's time to speak up about it.

We can make national stories about how so-and-so was sentenced for the simple act of getting a porno from their kid. I'd love to see some Scopes trials on this.

I turned out great with a lot of knowledge and RESPECT for the act of sex, rather than the common thought of it being an abomination. It can connect people together, is a way to display your affection, and is just plain fun:-)

From the way porn is marketed, you might learn that sex is "dirty" or "nasty", and that women with a high sex drive are "out-of-control sluts".

Not that all of these things don't have a place in healthy fantasies, but you need enough real-world experience to know where this differs from reality. Even if these kinds of ideas aren't learned overtly, they still could color a person's thinking if exposed to them enough in formative years.

Okay, if the ultra-violent rape porn is obviously bad, is the hardcore bondage porn? What about the goofy S&M porn? Okay, so how about the no-whips-involved-but-she-likes-to-be-slapped porn? The pull-my-hair porn? Okay what about the stick stuff in me porn? Where in the spectrum of fetishes people have is the line drawn? Is it okay to admit to children that there is a such thing as a fetish?Personally, I don't think any of it is something that can't be explained to kids. Heck, it might even enlighten th

It's not per se bad to think of the children. It is, however, per se bad to justify something bad with an amorphous call to "think of the children." "My idea is good, and if you question it then you are against the children" is the type of argument that's bad. Logically sound arguments that happen to involve specific thoughts about children are just fine.

You might not have heard, maybe they're censoring your net access and keeping you away from bad books. But you, along with the rest of the kids, _will_ get bigger, grow hair all kinds of weird places and eventually look like your parents.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. I'm not sure where I sit on this law, but this seems like an odd reason to strike it down, since children aren't given the same rights as adults in our society. The most obvious example of this is the right to vote. This comment seems to be out of line with the rest of the opinion.

If you take away the rights of adults today there will be none for minors to inherit tomorrow..

While I don't (yet) have a position on the disenfranchisement of felons in the United States, I'm not sure if your argument really sways me either way.

America's prison population passed the two million mark back in 1992. By 2001, one in 37 adult Americans had been in prison for some period of time (including those who were still there.) For over a decade, sixty percent of the prison population is made up of minorities. While less than one percent of the population is in prison, nearly five percent of the black population of the US is incarcerated.

Summary: lots of people are convicted felons.

It's long past time to recognize the disenfranchisement of felons for what it is; a denial of democracy.

I think that's kind of the idea -- disenfranchisement is basically the removal of citizenship.

If you take the vote away from an entire class of people, their needs and problems need not be addressed; they are effectively denied a voice in government.

The former half of this is part of a point, but again, I think that's kind of the idea.

This becomes far easier when they are people who have been dehumanized by society.

By here, you begin to expand on your main idea, but then your argument ends.

"Disenfranchisement" -- kicking people out -- as punishment has been around forever. The English sent people to Australia (and even America, IIRC). Pirates maroon. We remove their rights as citizens. This doesn't make it good, just tested. I assume that you understand the reasons behind the policy in general.

Your argument seems to be that there are so many felons at this point, we might as well just let them back into citizenship. This is a non sequitur; why should it matter how many felons there are, or how many are minorities, etc.? The reason that a felon is disenfranchised is to remove them from society -- I'm sure the framers would have sent people to some uninhabited area if they could (the wild west, for instance). A few more felons wouldn't have made much difference.

Perhaps it's the permanent disenfranchisement that bothers you. You know, that bothers me a bit, too.

While I do mostly agree with your message, I wanted to reply to this particular point:For over a decade, sixty percent of the prison population is made up of minorities

60% is only 10% greater than 50%. If the prison population was 50/50 minority/majority isn't that pretty much what you'd expect from a purely chaotic system where there isn't any "targetting" going on ? I mean one minority group would obviously represent a small portion of the population (hence the term "minority") but if you take all of the

Those that commit felonies lose their right to vote. Not just black felons or hispanic felons -- all felons. What does the race of the felon have to do with your argument?

The arguement is that since minority (read "non-white") felons make up such a disproportionate part of the system, it is effectively limiting that group's voice in government. Disenfranchising "enemies" of your politcal group is usually seen as a Bad Thing, especially given what they were sentenced for (mostly drug crimes) are not seen

Huh.I find the idea that minority people are so fundamentally different from white people that they can't be adequately represented by votes from other races both ridiculous and offensive.

The fact that people think like this is a symptom of the triumph of democracy over a republican form of government. Politics in this country is no more about the rule of law but is now all about deciding which special interest group gets how big a slice of the pie.

I don't know why I feel compelled to join a debate every time a similar point comes up, but here I go again...

Prison, and punishment in general is not about all about rehabilitation. Other important reasons for punishing law breakers include, but are not limited to, incapacitation, general and specific deterrence, and good old fashioned punishment.

The measure of a persons punishment should consider much much more than the person's current rehabibility status.

A couple of examples:

A bum breaks a window because it gets really cold in Chicago in the winter - he'd rather face the punishment than freeze to death. Sure there may be better ways to stay warm, and he may have chosen unwisely, but given similar circumstances in the future he'd likely do the same thing. Do we lock him up forever for breaking a window - or execute him as you suggest?

I get pulled over for speeding - 60 in a 55 zone, and pay my fine. Three months later I get pulled over again in the same spot again doing 60. Clearly I haven't been rehabilitated of my wanton need for speed. How do you deal with me?

A severely mentally ill person is caught running around your local park naked. Rehab is impossible because there are no known treatments for his condition. Numerous experts testify that in the future he may cause more nuisance crimes, but he is in no way a danger to himself or others. Do we jail him? Is permanent civil commitment a better option? Do we execute all mentally handicap persons? What if is mother testifies that she takes care of him, and she foolishly left the back door unlocked allowing the streaker to escape. She vows that she will be more diligent - and points out that nothing like this has ever happened before. She also makes the excellent point that he will certainly be better cared for at her home than in a state institution. She unfortunately can't guarantee another event like this will never happen again - and as was previously mentioned the man certainly isn't rehabilitated.

The point is that it is not necessary to kill people to keep society safe. We can keep prisoners quite well. Put them in maximum security facilities. But we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have executed men innocent of the crimes for which we killed them, and it costs more to kill someone (in our current system) than it does to incarcerate them for life. So why do we kill people?

I might also add that for those who consider themselves christian, the ten commandments

This additional punishment helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences.

Mostly what it reminds the felon of is that he is a criminal, there is no going back, he has little to no hope in legitimate society in terms of job or rights, and so said felon will be best rewarded by honing skills that are outside legitimate society. In other words, one way or another, making you and yours a target for crime. For example, if he wants a gun, he has to steal yours. If he wants to live at a higher standard than the street, he needs to rob you. If he wants diamonds for his girlfriend, your wife's are easier to get than those in a jewelry store, and stealing those from a jewelry store are still easier than buying them. Unless he steals your money, of course. Voting? No, he cannot affect society that way - presuming he ever could. Insurance costs are higher for him, assuming he can even get insured. But he can't get a good job. He can get your money. Or if not, he can sell your daughter. People will do anything to survive; especially if they're pissed off at the people they're doing that "anything" to.

Infinite punishment in the realm of a free person's rights and reputation is self-defeating for society. You might like the idea, but you really won't like the results when they get around to finding you. And the more people from whom we take these abilities, the more likely you and yours are to be victims. We're creating a broad underclass with a very specific set of skills and giving them a very good reason to resent the rest of us.

Either adjust the punishment so that criminals who commit the crime at hand must remain in prison for a longer amount of time if you're not satisfied with the current punishment, or leave it the same if you are, but either way, when you release them from imprisonment say they've paid their dues. Don't mix public life with punishment. It is, in the final analysis, harmful to society at all levels.

The same problem applies to prison conditions. They have to reach minimum standards of humanity. No rapes. No beatings. No exposure to STDs. A chance to improve one's self. Otherwise, when you release these people, you have been effectively beating the wasp's nest with a broom and you really shouldn't be surprised when the first thing that happens is they jam their stinger right into your tender parts. And you know what? After they mug you and kill your spouse, there's no fixing it. And just as you want to tell those felons your ideas about post-prison punishment "helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences", I would simply say the same to you. You made a choice to abuse these people far beyond what is reasonable for society's sake, and now the consequences have come home to roost. maybe next time, you'll be smarter. Because for you, there is nowhere to turn.

There's a full array of law out there to make sure these people remain as criminal as possible in their behavior once released. Don't you worry about that. No, sir. And they'll stay away from you out of pure respect. Sure they will.

Sure. Lots. Every time you hear about restrictions on who can get an abortion, or when, or mandatory counseling prior to surgery. And it often happens at the state level, where it's not as easy to get it ruled unconstitutional. (Yay! We're an independant state, and we can sometimes legislate our rights away!)

"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.

Mr. Keisler then pointed at a child in the back of the the court playing a PSP and continued, "I mean, it's not like I have time to watch this brat."

What makes that comment especially stupid is that you *don't* cut this material off at it's source. You cut it off where it enters your home: at your PC. And guess what? A parent can do a far better job of this, at home, than the government can by policing the Internet.

And just how many families are going to give up that unnecessary second income? *crickets chirping* I thought so.

I've seen a lot of people of both sexes talk the talk, but then not even walk at all when it's time to walk the walk.

Parental responsibility includes a recognition that your needs aren't important compared to your family's. You like your job, but don't need it to support your kids? You have a moral obligation to quit if it is getting in the way at all of being a parent.

But we can't say that today because that's "sexist" and "backward." Funny how well "modernity" seems to be working out for families. Divorce rates through the roof, kids screwed up right and left, but hey, let's ignore all of that and focus on abstract ideas that make us feel good, right?

While I agree with you in principle, you seem to be confused about the "unnecessary second income".

For a LOT of families, that second income is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Mortgage payments are higher than they've ever been. Gas prices are higher than they've ever been. Work for a company that doesn't provide insurance? Insurance prices are ASTRONOMICALLY high.

Throw a couple of kids into the mix, and anyone at or below the "lower-middle-class" income bracket is struggling, big-time.

Yes, a lot of those families probably don't manage their money particularly well. But even if they did, they probably wouldn't be saving much. They'd still live paycheck-to-paycheck, they just wouldn't be going into debt every month to pay bills.

Perhaps I am wrong but I read it as sarcasm. Most of the people I know feel they must have the second income to live a "comfortable" lifestyle. That being said I know others who have three kids and survive off only one income which is not very good in and of itself. So I guess I can see it both ways: we feel we need the second jobs but we most certainly do not, your family will not starve or be out on the street with only one bread winner but you might not be able to afford two cars and all the crapy in

My wife has a job, but it's part time and mostly done from home, so she spends my work days at home with our 6-month-old.

It doesn't bring in that much money (we could do without the income without much trouble), but in my mind the big benefit is redundancy. When I get laid off (and, like most US techies, that's just the right hire in India away), she can up her hours and bring in some money to augment my unemployment compensation, while I try to find another job. Much better than both of us job-hunting at

The thing is, a generation ago, this wasn't the case.Over the last 30 years, both partners have started working. At the beginning of this, the two worker partnerships brought in a very good sum, comparatively.So, it became the thing to do, as everyone wanted to get the 'extras'. And as more money was available within limited segments (read the housing market), the prices rose to the point that the new double incomes would be able to support.Childcare services were now more in demand, which meant the prices were able to inflate commensurately too.So, in effect, what we have now is more or less the same quality of life overall that was available a generation ago, except it now requires two partners to be working to maintain that standard, rather than one.The option to have one partner working has more or less vanished, unless you're really willing to cut corners.

I think one of the things to consider is whether the lifestyle afforded by the second income is necessary. You don't _need_ a 4500 sq ft McMansion, a pool, a live-in nanny, and 2 $50k+ SUVs. Housing is expensive because too many dual income "families" are willing to overbid on a house where the greatest feature is that it's close to work.Most people are unwilling or incapable of changing their lifestyle to provide a decent home for their kids. It seems that most parents are completely unwilling to giv

Why do you think I explicitly put the qualification, "unnecessary" in there. Please, don't lecture me on this because I can actually appreciate how hard it can be to live on one income because I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the richest and most expensive parts of America. When many Americans in smaller areas were whining about $2 gas, we were contemplating driving down to the small towns to buy our gas there!What I am talking about are the families that really don't need a second income. There a

For a lot of them the income is necessary, but there are a great number who do not practice efficiency and thrift. This is because most of MY generation failed to pass on the lessons of our Depression Era parents.For example, when my parents didn't have money, they didn't go in debt to buy nonessentials. (If you were POOR, you lived cheap and weren't ashamed of it.)

They taught us by example and explanation that if it was not food/clothing/shelter/EDUCATION you didn't need it. They also taught us that if you

I'd rather they take some fuckin' responsibility, instead of having kids w/out thinking about it. Or instead, going ahead anyway, and then being whiney bitches about how they can't afford it because they didn't get their financial shit together first. I'd rather they think about things instead of blaming other people or "the economy."

For a LOT of families, that second income is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Mortgage payments are higher than they've ever been. Gas prices are higher than they've ever been. Work for a company that doesn't provide insurance? Insurance prices are ASTRONOMICALLY high.

Wages are higher then they have ever been, and more unnecessary luxuries are deemed as "necessary" than ever before. Blah blah blah. How about using real data? Raw numbers are irrelevant. you need to compare the indices to get a real picture.

Yes, a lot of those families probably don't manage their money particularly well. But even if they did, they probably wouldn't be saving much. They'd still live paycheck-to-paycheck, they just wouldn't be going into debt every month to pay bills.

You are so wrong and your assertion is a prime example of what is wrong. Congratulations you are perpetuating the problem.

Fact is most people, including families, can save a lot of money by paying attention and separating needs from wants, then taking a hard look. For example, take the young couple who become parents. What is the "mainstream" route for them? both are to work so they can have two cars, cable or satellite, plenty of toys for the grown ups, buy formula and diapers. But what really happens? What is really needed? First, the secondary income (hers or his, usually hers) is dwindled away by the cost of childcare and additional taxes. For most people I've dealt with the net "loss" in income from mom staying home is very minor, and more than a third see a net increase in monthly cash flow. That job mom has making 1000/month is usually more like 150 after taking into account the cost of having the job such as transportation (including a second car and the accompanying payments and insurance), childcare, etc..

Next we turn to the "cost of the child" beyond babysitting. Let us start with diapering. Most people lament the high cost of disposables. And rightly so. Disposable diapers are expensive as hell. Cloth diapers and a washing machine are much cheaper. Now I know many of you are having this image of a sheet of fabric held together by "safety pins". This is not the state of cloth diapering today, nor has it been for a decade. Today's cloth diapers are actually easier than disposables to use. A simple "pickle bucket" setup and a good washing machine will ensure that you don't have this stench about the house. If that isn't enough, the cloth diapered children are less cranky due to less irritation, and healthier due to not having chemicals applied to their nether regions that have been banned from feminine hygiene products for toxicity reasons. Using cloth diapers for the first year alone will save over two thousand dollars on average - including the cost of washing them.

Now we turn to the other high cost of young children: formula. Again, by taking the natural route you can save thousands. In addition the children are healthier and happier (by not being as cranky and irritable). Breastfeeding is also very convenient for the parents as well. And while on this subject news flash: a separate nursery for the new baby with beds, changing tables, etc. is also entirely unnecessary. Another several thousand dollars you don't need to spend. Baby should sleep with mom and dad for the first year or so. Don't worry dad, if mom is breastfeeding you'll still sleep well -usually better even.

I've done the mainstream route as well as the route listed above. I can personally vouch for over 5500 in savings for the above route over the "standard" of baby getting room with all manner of furniture, bottles, formula, disposable diapers, etc.. For one child, first year, not counting the unnecessary daily childcare costs. Yet all this is considered "absolutely necessary" today, and it isn't. Buying cotton clothing for your young children (birth through at least 3-4) instead of the more expensive polyester clothing will keep you from spending on "fad" clothing that is really unnecessary. honestly, your 6 month old doesn't care what

You didn't say which parent should quit their job and it doesn't matter. If one of the two incomes in a household can support the household, the other one can and probably should quit. It doesn't matter which parent that is.Though the truth is that almost everything is sexist one way or another. The average person would probably assume that the statement above was referring to the female in the household. The "femenist" would assume the same and get pissed about it because it is sexist. But try

No couple is forced to work two jobs. If a couple works two jobs, it is more likely that they are living beyond there means. That could be buying expensive crap they don't need to inflate their ego in relation to their peers, or they are in a mountain of debt, most likely related to the results of living beyond their means.

In the US, we have to have everything now, we can not wait for it to go on sale, and we deffiently can't wait to save up money to buy the product. I guess that is why the US has a nega [cbsnews.com]

Um, just out of curiosity... if you and, say, 500 of your idealogical or cultural fellows applied for and got a permit to occupy a public street or use a facility of some sort, and held such an event... and then someone else gathered 1000 drum-banging loons you can't stand to march in and shout down the communication you're trying to have between yourself and your 500 friends, would you consider the complete inability to hold the event for which you obtained the permits, paid the fees, etc., to be an example of your first amendment rights being protected? Or would you consider the 1000 people without the permits, who are specifically stepping in to disrupt your activity, to be the ones at fault? Should every peaceful demonstration or political rally really just be a complete shouting and shoving and size-of-signs contest to see who can drown out who? Why is it that some people think that only disruptive and sometimes destructive street antics are valid discourse in a public space, and don't get the irony because their typical idealogical opponents don't consider such amateur theatrics to be actually persuasive, and as such they don't "retaliate" with the same when the roles are reversed?

If your protesting or demonstration group - or, a much larger political organization to which you belong and which holds events that you attend - goes through the right steps to spend a day holding an event on the mall in DC (or wherever), would you consider your rights well looked after if your speeches or performances or other messages were simply disrupted/ended by idiots with giant puppets while the police, who are there to enforce the conditions of the permit that you properly obtained, just stand by and watch your event - and your use of the space you arranged to use - become worthless to you? You can't have it both ways.

I don't understand how your analogy applies to conventions. The people gathering do not go inside the convention center. The people gathering do not out number the people attending the primary event. Or are you saying that if they convention holders wanted to smother the protesters, they'd just go outside and make some noise for a while and everyone'd go away? I think that such tactics would bring more attention to the protesters than just ignoring them. So, in the case you are mentioning, being protes

"The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law."

Move their operations offshore?? We see how that worked for the casinos, They will get you when changing plains. :

How about move it offshore, Move out of the country, and NEVER set foot on US soil again! A hard thing to do in these times. Next you know the US will divert plains and instruct them to land on US soil, just to arrest some one.

Oh well, welcome to the Land of the Free and home of the Brave....

Please note that the above statement predates the current laws restricting your freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and freedom to assemble(1). The restrictions on gun ownership(2), The no-knock warrants (4), Holding people with out a trial outside of the country (5,6), Setting bail above the amount a person can make in there lifetime (7), and the loss of amendments 9 and 10 after the civil war. But you are free to excersize you 3rd amendment right! "Amendment #3 No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Oh, and as for the Brave part. You can not be brave and defend your self with deadly force unless you have first tried to run away and hide. If there is no where to run, then you can be brave and defend your self.

I am all for a constitutional Tea party to show that the Americans have not lost the spirit of what was started, Just this time we should sink cigarette trucks! The Tax on them is through the roof! The government makes more from a pack of cigarettes than the cigarette companies do!

Even so... do you really find it brave to stand there while the thug you're lecturing does something irrational, like not listening to your well considered logic about how his life has gone astray and how much happier he'd be if he didn't actually, just now, rape your wife? Is your wife being brave, or cowardly, if she just lies there and takes i

Well, thank the founding fathers, at any rate. Yes, the world has changed and the powers of the federal government have grown beyond the dreams of Jefferson and Madison and those folk. And Yes, maybe they're a bunch of dead rich white slave-owners. But they weren't nincompoops!

The legal system in this country is pretty messed up, riddled with inefficies and outright injustices. But it still does some things right. =)

My wife and I already plan on her staying at home to raise our kids when they are spawned. For reasons just like this. Parents have a responsibility to be the safeguards of their children. If you aren't up to that responsibility, don't have kids.

Now , if we could just get clones of this judge to march on Washington.. maybe curtail this damned Nanny State we have brewing.

American Parents need to be prosecuted by our laws for the actions of their children. Growing up, I was constantly reminded by my teachers and my parents that if I commit a crime as a minor, my parents could be held equally accountable.
Not knowing if that was actually true then, it seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Placing the entire responsibility in plain view like this would be a positive post-action to this decision. Sure the liberals will quip "but what if [substitute a situation]", but lets get one thing straight here: You are the conscious of your children until they are 18 years old. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility for protection from all things evil and wrong is the parent.
"What if my child is just wild, and just commits a crime to get me in trouble?"
Let me say this: If you have a precedence set which shows you have done everything imaginable to prevent that crime from happening, how can you be held accountably negligent? In itself, this wipes out the majority of slacking little fund sucking little freeloading parents in the US that are basically asking Legislators to raise their children- in the schools, in the afterschool programs, and on the weekends.
I'm sick of all the oversite. Childporn is wrong, disgusting, and a very real problem. However, the gating point for access to my children is me

Isn't this a concept. That those charged in the protection and upbringing of children should take care of these things, and leave our
personal freedoms alone. Who is this judge, and someone give him a promotion and a raise for using common sense and some foresight.

I liked this as well: which they will with age inherit fully

Gives some real insight into the Protect the Children mentality. How about we protect what they will value as adults?

Oh, that's right. I forgot about that part of the First Amendment that says that the protections it guarantees are limited to people above a certain age. Can somebody remind me exactly which age group of people it is to whom the Bill of Rights doesn't apply?

Goodbye mod points, but I feel too strongly about this to keep my trap shut...

The US Constitution was written is a different time. Because of this, it isn't quite as infected with the rampant legalism most current US laws are - to be more specific, the need to specify each & every point, down to the letter. It can be fairly safely assumed that anytime "the people" is used in the Consitution, what they actually meant was "full citizens of the United States."

You completely miss the point: Google did not fight COPA - they fought a subpoena asking them to hand over search data that the DOJ wanted to use to try to find examples of how "innocent" searches would return porn, only. Since the government got that data from the other targets, and got some data from Google too, Google's stand on the matter had little to no effect on the overall case.

Instead of fawning over Google, thank Salon.com and the other sites that sued, and ACLU for helping them.

Now I'm not on the Google = Evil train or such, but I don't buy that argument. Ethics should always come above profits, and legality, especially if your a company going under a highfalutin' slogan like "do no evil". The rational of "Well these laws are unjust, but damn they are the law, and boy do we want their money!" is a rather weak ethical justification of contributing to the oppression of a couple billion people.In fact Google is down right getting rich from said oppression, which is rather mercenary

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

This is less about child porn and more about parents that want the government to babysit their children for free.

This isn't about child porn or murder.Child porn is completely illegal, because kids under 18 (Varies by state, actually) are legally unable to consent to it.

COPA is about preventing children from SEEING LEGAL porn. Basically, I think COPA requires web sites to make an effort to prevent children from accessing stuff like that... You know, age checks, requiring credit cards to prove age, etc etc. The judge is saying that forcing webmasters to restrict their content like this is a violation of free speech,